|
Deterrance and the Iraq campaign.
by Mark Goldblatt, National ReviewHeavily EFL'd & emphasis added. In the middle of an article on the Jane Fonda Veggie-Tails Magic Bus Tour, the author makes a point about Iraq that I've not seen anywhere else: Suppose, therefore, itâs late 2002, and youâre the president of the United States. Three thousand civilians have been murdered in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania by Islamic terrorists, and youâve responded by toppling the government in Afghanistan which hosted the terroristsâ sponsor, Osama bin Laden. But along the way, youâve inadvertently, though unavoidably, sent a perilous message to the rest of the world. Since the end of World War II, Americaâs national security has largely rested on the belief that an outright attack on the United States would be answered by unspeakable retaliation. That belief, youâve now demonstrated, was false. Osama called our collective bluff. He hit us in a horrific way, and you didnât lash out. You investigated, determined who was behind the attack . . . and even once you knew it was Osama, and that he was operating out of Afghanistan, you didnât incinerate Kabul. Rather, you only demanded that the Taliban hand him over "dead or alive." In doing so, you provided our international enemies with an easy-to-follow formula for waging war against the United States: Just work your mayhem through non-state surrogates and, after the next 9/11, if America again connects the dots, hand over a few corpses to satisfy Washingtonâs demand for justice. All right, youâre the president. The Taliban is gone, but so too is the great measure of Americaâs deterrence. Meanwhile, Islamic terrorism remains a very real threat. As you survey the festering political landscape of the Muslim world, you must now ask yourself which dictatorial thug is most likely to capitalize on that formula for waging war against the United States? Saddam Hussein in Iraq is a strong candidate. He also happens to be in violation of United Nations Resolution #687, the ceasefire agreement that ended the first Gulf War in 1991, which allowed him to remain in power on the condition that he provide full and accurate disclosure of all long-range missiles and WMDs â so that U.N. inspectors could verify Iraq's disarmament. Saddam has never lived up to the terms of the cease fire; indeed, heâs repeatedly kicked out the inspectors and ignored a dozen subsequent U.N. resolutions demanding that he come into compliance. In short, thereâs a solid legal basis for toppling Saddam. So do you go after him or not? . . . Posted by: Mike 2005-08-04 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=125923 |